14/05/2025
‘the_Code_of_Civil_Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025’
Purpose of the Amendment:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), has been updated to make it more efficient and responsive to current needs. These updates aim to streamline civil litigation, encourage digital communication, and prevent delays in the judicial process.
Key Amendments at a Glance:
1. Title:
Named as Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025.
2. Section 35A:
Compensation limit raised from 20 taka to 50 taka.
3. Section 57:
This section is repealed.
4. Order V, Rule 9(3):
odernized communication: Now includes SMS, voice calls, and instant messaging for transmission of documents.
5. Order VII, Rule 1 (b) & (c):
Parties must now include phone number, NID, and email address (if available) in their address details.
6. Order IX, Rule 13:
A decree can’t be set aside more than once for the same defendant under this rule.
7. Order XVII, Rule 1:
Maximum adjournments reduced: "six" changed to "three".
Adjournment requires 300 taka cost upfront and may include additional 2000 taka to be paid to the opposite party. Failure to pay:
By plaintiff = suit dismissal
By defendant = ex parte decision
8. Order XVIII, Rule 4A (New):
Pleadings via affidavit allowed instead of oral statements.
Cross-examination proceeds directly.
Document admissibility still subject to court approval.
Rule 20 changed:
Court now has discretion to fix the number of suits heard per day.
9. Order XXI:
Rule 10A (New): Ex*****on can proceed in the original suit with court permission, even if records are in superior court.
Rule 30A (New): Money decrees may be executed like fines imposed by Magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
***The phrase "A decree can’t be set aside more than once for the same defendant under this rule" refers to the amendment of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Here's what it means in simple terms:
Explanation:
Order IX, Rule 13 allows a defendant to apply to set aside (cancel) a decree passed ex parte — meaning a judgment made in the defendant's absence, usually because they didn’t appear in court.
Previously, if a defendant had a valid reason (like not getting a summons), they could ask the court to set aside that decree.
Under the new amendment, if the court already set aside the decree once, the same defendant cannot file another application under this rule to set it aside again in the same case.
Purpose of This Rule:
To prevent repeated delays and misuse of the legal process by filing multiple applications for setting aside the same decree.
Example:
If a defendant misses a court hearing and the case is decided against him (ex parte decree), he can apply once to cancel that decision. But if the court accepts it and gives him another chance, and he misses that again, he can’t apply again under Rule 13 to cancel the new decision.
Thanks a lot!
